NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/qualrsl/2091

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 3.8 KB | 68 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!BSUVAX1.BITNET!00RLBLOMEYER
X-Envelope-to: [e-mail]
X-VMS-To: IN%"[e-mail]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:30:02 -0500
Sender:       Qualitative Research for the Human Sciences <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      Re: Triangulation
Lines: 52

David: If we get off onto a discussion of triangulation, will we digress
into the infinite vortex of issues concerning relativism? If social events
are interpreted by multiple persons, then there are multiple viewpoints
on their meaning. This may or may not be problematic depending on the
viewpoint of the individual "researcher" involved. Many aspects of this
problem with relativity have been discussed by our methodological godpersons
in program evaluation. It is worthwhile to consider their viewpoints and
dialogues before thinking about breaking new ground.
In the volume entitled SAFARI: Innovation Evaluation Research and the Problem
of Control (Ed. Barry Macdonald & Rob Walker), Center for Applied Research
in Education, University of East Anglia, Norwich UK NR4 7TJ... we find an
interesting piece of conceptual analysis by Hans Brugelmann entitled "Towards
the Use of Checks and Balances in Educational Evaluation: On the Use of Social
Control in Research Designs". I think he gives us an excellent point for
beginning a dialogue relevant to triangulation and relativistic interpretation:
(Pg. 40-41)
THE CONTROLLED RELATIVITY PARADIGM
Difficulties in describing specific situations or in generalizing about them
therefore are:
- the "archimedean fallacy", i.e. knowledge cannot be validated externally;
- the "deductive fallacy", i.e. the interpretation of general rules with
respect to specific cases cannot escape value-laden judgements;
- the "mirror fallacy", i.e. the fact that ouur mind is not just copying
reality;
- the "consistency fallacy", i.e. the fact that no two social situations are
alike;
- the "object fallacy", i.e. the inference of the observer in the field and
its "re-activeness";
- the "inductive fallacy", i.e. the logical impossibility of predicting the
future from past regularities.
(Pg. 41)
... In spite of the fact that the criticism levelled against these paradigms
[heuristic/naturalistic] is at a level of general principle, some people
still hope that these deficiencies can be overcome by inventing new
methodologies. (cf. J. Habermas for example, who has who has criticized
Popper on similar grounds as I have but still hopes for some sort of
"objectivity" on other grounds, see Habermas 1968 for instance). I strongly
believe this to be mistaken. Moreover, I consider the whole notion of
"objectivity" to be dangerous to social science. However carefully we qualify
and resrtict its meaning, it will still carry the connotation of an externally
valadated and therefore binding kind of knowledge. We have to face the fact,
however, that social research cannot be unbiased and its results, therefore,
cannot claim a particular authority. [end quote]
Well, now that I've thrown out a radical relativist position, what does this
mean for triangulation and other methods that may add "authority" to qualitative
research? Is there anything WRONG with multiple interpretations? Does the
responsible "researcher" enjoy some hegonomy regarding the MEANING of an
observed social event? Or, are we so conditioned to accepting idealist positions
that we are driven to exclude other possibilities and determine the "right
 answer"?? What does method have to do with social reality?
Bob Blomeyer, Teachers College, Ball State University
[e-mail]